1) I'm American as well. I learned both systems, but the Imperial system is the one used in day-to-day life so it's easy for adults to forget the metric units unless they use them consistently. (e.g. They work as a physicist and constantly reference units in metric.) Honestly, I don't remember most Imperial->Metric conversions by heart so I use Google to refresh my memory whenever I need to.
2) My comment was about journalists assuming that Americans would be baffled by metric units. Even if most Americans wouldn't know offhand exactly how many feet 100 meters was, they would have a general idea of the distance. If more news articles stuck to metric, people would get used to the measurements and would adjust. Unfortunately, the media loves pandering to the lowest common denominator and they (the media) assumes that they (the lowest common denominator) can't be bothered to wrap their brain around complex concepts like different measurement systems.
Clinton - and most other politicians - claim to be "misunderstood", "taken out of context", or issue insincere apologies when they are called on outright lying. (As opposed to just twisting the truth.) Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to care if he lies or tells the truth. When he's caught on lying (e.g. saying he saw thousands of Americans celebrating on 9-11 as the towers came down), he doubles down and insists it's true because he says it is. If he says the sky is green with pink polka dots, it doesn't matter how often you point to the blue sky above you or show him photos, he'll keep insisting it is. For someone who claims to not be a politician, he out-politicians the politicians. (And that's not meant as a compliment.)
My wife and I freaked out when our youngest hit 99, but we had good reason. He's had a ton of febrile seizures - including one where he turned grey, stopped breathing and didn't start up again until after he had rescue breaths administered. (Scariest moment of my life, by the way.) We knew his body temperature tended on the low side so 99 meant he was beginning to get a fever and we needed to act fast to make sure he didn't experience another seizure.
"Journalists" do this because they think the American public is too stupid to use metric so everything needs to be converted to imperial. They Google "how many feet is 100 meters", get 328.084 feet, chop off the decimal (because Americans are too stupid for decimal places too), and report this as the exact distance.
By the way, I use the quotes around the word journalists because people who do this aren't real journalists. Sadly, real journalists are becoming rarer and rarer. Most people who call themselves journalists today just take a press release or AP/Reuters wire story, tweak a few words, and publish it. These "journalists" are like script kiddies who download a program, point it at a website, break in, and declare themselves an uber hacker. They might call themselves something (hacker/journalist), but their lack of actual skills shows that they really aren't what they say they are.
Much apprciatd. My own storag of 's was gtting dangrously low. I trid to buy thm from an onlin sourc, but that sal fll to pics. Who knw it would b so hard to locat a vndor to purchas xtra 's from?
Exactly this. People worry about terrorism like it's a daily occurrence here. Even if we include the 9-11 attack (which was clearly an outlier), there have been something like 4,000 people killed in terrorist attacks on American soil in the past 15 years. That's an average of 267 a year. Given that there are about 308 million Americans, that means we have a 0.00009% chance of being killed by a terrorist every year.
According to the CDC, 10 people die of drowning every day. That would be 3,650 people a year or over 13 times the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack. But you don't see a "War on Drowning", will calls to ban swimming pools and erect giant fences around lakes. You don't see plumbers being called in for questioning on suspicion of installing a bathtub that could lead to someone drowning.
There are always going to be wackos who threaten lives. We can be smart about finding them and stopping them, but the risk they pose isn't nearly high enough to justify the amount of liberties we are giving up. Whether we should give up liberties at any risk level is another story, of course, but the insanely low risk of terrorist attack makes it all the more ridiculous.
I heard that the San Bernadino shooter had unleashed a zombie apocalypse virus and the only copy of the cure is stored on the phone.
Or was it that the phone has a timer application running on it which, if it's not stopped, will hack into all nuclear weapon control centers and launch them all simultaneously.
We can prove that any of this is false unless Apple unlocks the phone!!!
As much as I'm on Apple's side on this, what might be technically possible for Apple to do might be near-impossible for the FBI to accomplish. Should Apple decide tomorrow to comply with this demand and assuming that this isn't 100% impossible to to, Apple has the technical know-how to figure out how to code it and have the ability to sign the code as being from Apple (and thus being allowed to run on iOS devices). The FBI, on the other hand, has no experience writing software for iOS devices and so wouldn't be able to code this at all and definitely wouldn't be able to sign it as coming from Apple.
Even if code isn't speech, wouldn't signing the code with Apple's certificate be considered speech? It's Apple certifying that this code passes their standards. By being forced to sign code, they are being forced to declare code as acceptable to Apple because the government told them to say it was acceptable.
So maybe Apple is forced to write the code but can't be forced to sign it. Good luck running that code on the iPhone, FBI!
They can't because Apple's encryption system will only accept 10 PIN attempts. If you don't get it right within 10 times, it'll wipe the phone. The FBI isn't really saying "decrypt this phone for us." What they do want is for Apple to push an update (remotely and with the phone still locked) that will 1) disable the 10 time limit and 2) allow them to key in the PIN attempts via a computer (simulating a keyboard connected via USB).
All this being said, Apple is right to resist this because, despite the FBI claiming it's a one-time thing, the FBI and others have hundreds of phones lined up for Apple's help to unlock. If Apple writes this software, it won't be tied to one phone. It'll need to be used over and over for new phones every day. And if you say, "They can just write it for one phone and delete it," then the courts will just answer "well, you wrote it once, you can do it again." Alternatively, the FBI might demand a general tool to use for future investigations once they have a record of getting these phones unlocked whenever they want.
The time to fight this is now and thank goodness Apple is taking up the fight. This is one of those all-too-rare occurrences when corporate interests and consumer interests align.
Trump seems more like the Norman Osborne of our world. A slimy individual who will do anything if it advances himself, who has a "clean" public image, but who is for some seriously scary stuff.
Actually, Trump has spent his own money - about $250K of it. Much more, however, he has "loaned" his campaign. Eventually, if/when he's the nominee and raises funds from other people, his campaign will pay him back with interest. Thus, Trump will profit off of running for President even if he doesn't win. (That, and the whole "free publicity" thing which he loves.)
I agree with this but add to the game show buzzer with a mild electric shock. Not enough to permanently injure the candidates, but enough to stop them from speaking and make them experience some pain. (Of course, some politicians might develop an immunity to electric shocks, but we can cross that bridge later.)
You jest, but some congressmen have criticized the FCC for setting the definition of "Broadband Internet" at 25Mbps. These politicians (and the ISPs that paid for them) think we'd be just fine with 10 Mbps and they can't imagine any use where we'd need faster.
(Personally, I'm stuck on 15Mbps Time Warner Cable and really wish the network faster and more reliable.)
c) The FBI wants Apple (and other phone manufacturers) to give them backdoor access. So far, phone manufacturers have resisted this. So the FBI is using this high profile case relating to terrorism (that "scary word" that all too often gives politicians root access to do anything they want) to set a precedent. If it goes according to the FBI's plan, then Apple will be forced to help them unlock this one phone. Then another phone will need to be unlocked and the precedent will already be set. Eventually, the list of crimes requiring Apple to unlock and the number of agencies able to request an unlock will grow until the local police department can have your phone unlocked because you were speeding. At some point, Apple will be forced by sheer volume to just include a backdoor so the FBI (and other law enforcement agencies) can get in without their requests getting in line at Apple behind all the other ones.
THAT is their end game. They are using this to get their foot in the door and then they'll push for more and more until our security (via encryption) is gone to help ensure our "security" (as in security theater... also known as power trip by those in law enforcement).
With most other politicians, you can pretty much ensure that they support the positions they are espousing. They might not actually act on them once elected for various reasons (for example, they might promise to make something illegal but then realize that the President just can't declare something illegal), but you can be pretty sure they won't flip flop and support the exact opposite position.
Trump, on the other hand, seems to say whatever he wants at the time and has no care whether something is true or whether it contradicts something he said previously. He's been for abortion, against it, for assault weapons bans, against them, etc. If he's sworn in as President, there's no telling what set of views he'll actually push forward.
Then again, even if we take him at his word, Trump has said some pretty scary stuff this election season. Things that would have meant the end of the candidacy for any other politician. Most recently, he said he wanted to weaken the First Amendment so that he could sue journalists who criticized him. Yes, Trump wants to make criticizing someone illegal even if the criticism is true. For all the talk of "he's not politically correct", having someone say you can't criticize a person or it will hurt them enough to warrant a lawsuit sounds extremely politically correct to me.
Trump is like a loose cannon on a ship. We don't know what direction he's going to fire in or what damage he'll do. The direction he's currently pointed in, however, is right at the hull of the ship and if he goes off in that direction he'll sink us all.
I definitely agree about run off voting and the electoral college. For the former, I'd love to say "I really want this candidate, but I'll take that candidate next, and if I really need to I'll hold my nose and vote for this third candidate." For the latter, I live in New York. No matter who I vote for, it's almost a given that my state's electoral college votes will go to the Democrat nominee. The problem with both is that the current system favors the entrenched parties and they will use all of their considerable effort to block and changes to it that reduce their power.
I almost wonder what would happen if Hillary got the Democrat nomination, the GOP dumped Trump (through some backroom procedures, most likely) and went with Cruz or Rubio, and both Sanders and Trump ran (separately) as third party candidates. Obviously, Sanders would draw mainly from the Democrat side while Trump would pull mostly from the GOP side. Would their third party runs weaken one side more than another? Would the effect of two strong third party candidates make the election close enough that one of the two third party candidates would have a decent shot at winning? Could we wind up with a third party President?
Personally, if Hillary gets the nomination, I'm either voting third party or - if there is no good third party candidate - will write in "Bernie Sanders."
That and "too much regulation" is entirely subjective. Let's suppose a company wants to dump its waste into a local river. Doing this is cheap and they don't need to worry about any cleanup. Unfortunately, people get sick due to the waste dump and regulations are written about proper waste disposal. This will cost the company money, which eats into profits. Of course the company will call these regulations "too much." To the people who are getting sick, though, the regulations might even be not enough. (e.g.. There isn't a strong enforcement provision or there's a loophole that lets them subcontract to another company who dumps the same waste into the same river.)
"Too much regulation" could be that the regulations really are burdensome and don't serve a valid purpose. Or "too much regulation" could mean that the company just wants to take the quick and easy path regardless of who gets hurt in the process because that will make them a few bucks more in profits.
You are correct, they will still make a profit. It's just that most of it will be realized without us. What the over regulation will end up doing is destroying the possibilities for competition to start up. It protects the already entrenched and places all sorts of barriers to entry for others that require huge amounts of capital investment and hoops to jump through.
"We're playing baseball with Timmy but he said that since the ball is his he should get ten strikes before he's out, not one. He also wants every hit of his to come with one free base advance. If we tell him no, then he's leaving with his ball and will play with some boys down the street who will give him all the special rules he's demanding."
I still like Twitter too. I think the key to Twitter is the same as the Internet in general. If you follow good people, you'll have a good experience. If you follow garbage, you'll have a rotten experience. If someone you follow starts posting garbage, you can just unfollow them to keep your feed clean and useful.
The trick is that what's good to one person is garbage to another. You or I could recommend people for others to follow but those others might say the recommendations stink. Not because the tweets are objectively bad, but because different people like different things.
All this being said, there are some indications that Twitter is looking to Facebook for inspiration as to where to head in the future. This is a huge mistake and could ruin the best part of Twitter - being able to get an unfiltered reverse-chronological view of what people you choose to follow are saying.
"Criticism is harassment"? And yet, when I and others were actually harassed on Twitter (by a psycho who believed god spoke with her and told her we all did some pretty disgusting illegal things), their response was that she's only "said" she was going to do things (like report us to the police or contact all businesses we deal with to warn them away from us) and hasn't actually DONE anything. And when she actually was kicked off Twitter, she just signed back in under a new account. (She's had something like 200 accounts so far.)
There is actual harassment happening on Twitter and taking care of it would be a good thing. Admittedly, this would be tricky to accomplish without squashing people's speech so Twitter would be best served by focusing on real harassment issues first. When that's solved, then they can move on to simple criticism (while pigs tweet their first flights).
Like I can't actually understand why people are supporting Hillary.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Sanders supporter too.)
Some people seem to be supporting Hillary because they think she has good policies. More power to the people who believe this. Whether it's true or not (that she has good policies), this is a good reason to support a candidate.
Unfortunately, many people seem to be supporting her because "it's her turn" or because she's a woman and they want a woman President. (Search Twitter for #ImWithHer for tweets supporting Hillary because of gender.) As far as the first goes, it's never anyone's "turn." You don't get to wait in line and get your turn being President. When it comes to the latter? Well, I have no problem with a woman President. I think we're past due to have one and will support any woman running who I think would make a good President. What I won't do, however, is support a candidate simply because they have a certain set of chromosomes just like I wouldn't vote for them simply because of skin color, ethnic background, or religious affiliation. Bernie is Jewish just like I am. It'd be cool to have the first Jewish President. As far as "reasons to vote for Bernie" goes, though, that doesn't even make it on my list.
I never said the hit man wouldn't be punished. Of course he would be. But the mob boss who ordered the hit would also be punished. Free speech has limitations.
Speech can definitely be used to incite violence and defamation/libel have been illegal for quite some time. None of our freedoms are without limit and that includes free speech. If a mob boss tells a hit man that someone needs to be shot dead, is that just words that can't possibly be prosecuted? If a pastor gives a stirring (to his group) speech about the evils of abortion, mentions how evil should be shot dead on sight, and then lists the home addresses of doctors who perform abortions, does he bear zero responsibility if one of his followers shoots one of the doctors?
Inciting someone to violence doesn't mean that the person who committed the act gets off. This isn't a "free will" issue where the person claims their will was taken over by someone else and they aren't culpable. However, it recognizes that people hold sway over each other and some hold a lot of sway.
Slashdot Mirror
Two things:
1) I'm American as well. I learned both systems, but the Imperial system is the one used in day-to-day life so it's easy for adults to forget the metric units unless they use them consistently. (e.g. They work as a physicist and constantly reference units in metric.) Honestly, I don't remember most Imperial->Metric conversions by heart so I use Google to refresh my memory whenever I need to.
2) My comment was about journalists assuming that Americans would be baffled by metric units. Even if most Americans wouldn't know offhand exactly how many feet 100 meters was, they would have a general idea of the distance. If more news articles stuck to metric, people would get used to the measurements and would adjust. Unfortunately, the media loves pandering to the lowest common denominator and they (the media) assumes that they (the lowest common denominator) can't be bothered to wrap their brain around complex concepts like different measurement systems.
Clinton - and most other politicians - claim to be "misunderstood", "taken out of context", or issue insincere apologies when they are called on outright lying. (As opposed to just twisting the truth.) Trump, on the other hand, doesn't seem to care if he lies or tells the truth. When he's caught on lying (e.g. saying he saw thousands of Americans celebrating on 9-11 as the towers came down), he doubles down and insists it's true because he says it is. If he says the sky is green with pink polka dots, it doesn't matter how often you point to the blue sky above you or show him photos, he'll keep insisting it is. For someone who claims to not be a politician, he out-politicians the politicians. (And that's not meant as a compliment.)
My wife and I freaked out when our youngest hit 99, but we had good reason. He's had a ton of febrile seizures - including one where he turned grey, stopped breathing and didn't start up again until after he had rescue breaths administered. (Scariest moment of my life, by the way.) We knew his body temperature tended on the low side so 99 meant he was beginning to get a fever and we needed to act fast to make sure he didn't experience another seizure.
"Journalists" do this because they think the American public is too stupid to use metric so everything needs to be converted to imperial. They Google "how many feet is 100 meters", get 328.084 feet, chop off the decimal (because Americans are too stupid for decimal places too), and report this as the exact distance.
By the way, I use the quotes around the word journalists because people who do this aren't real journalists. Sadly, real journalists are becoming rarer and rarer. Most people who call themselves journalists today just take a press release or AP/Reuters wire story, tweak a few words, and publish it. These "journalists" are like script kiddies who download a program, point it at a website, break in, and declare themselves an uber hacker. They might call themselves something (hacker/journalist), but their lack of actual skills shows that they really aren't what they say they are.
Much apprciatd. My own storag of 's was gtting dangrously low. I trid to buy thm from an onlin sourc, but that sal fll to pics. Who knw it would b so hard to locat a vndor to purchas xtra 's from?
Exactly this. People worry about terrorism like it's a daily occurrence here. Even if we include the 9-11 attack (which was clearly an outlier), there have been something like 4,000 people killed in terrorist attacks on American soil in the past 15 years. That's an average of 267 a year. Given that there are about 308 million Americans, that means we have a 0.00009% chance of being killed by a terrorist every year.
According to the CDC, 10 people die of drowning every day. That would be 3,650 people a year or over 13 times the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack. But you don't see a "War on Drowning", will calls to ban swimming pools and erect giant fences around lakes. You don't see plumbers being called in for questioning on suspicion of installing a bathtub that could lead to someone drowning.
There are always going to be wackos who threaten lives. We can be smart about finding them and stopping them, but the risk they pose isn't nearly high enough to justify the amount of liberties we are giving up. Whether we should give up liberties at any risk level is another story, of course, but the insanely low risk of terrorist attack makes it all the more ridiculous.
I heard that the San Bernadino shooter had unleashed a zombie apocalypse virus and the only copy of the cure is stored on the phone.
Or was it that the phone has a timer application running on it which, if it's not stopped, will hack into all nuclear weapon control centers and launch them all simultaneously.
We can prove that any of this is false unless Apple unlocks the phone!!!
As much as I'm on Apple's side on this, what might be technically possible for Apple to do might be near-impossible for the FBI to accomplish. Should Apple decide tomorrow to comply with this demand and assuming that this isn't 100% impossible to to, Apple has the technical know-how to figure out how to code it and have the ability to sign the code as being from Apple (and thus being allowed to run on iOS devices). The FBI, on the other hand, has no experience writing software for iOS devices and so wouldn't be able to code this at all and definitely wouldn't be able to sign it as coming from Apple.
Even if code isn't speech, wouldn't signing the code with Apple's certificate be considered speech? It's Apple certifying that this code passes their standards. By being forced to sign code, they are being forced to declare code as acceptable to Apple because the government told them to say it was acceptable.
So maybe Apple is forced to write the code but can't be forced to sign it. Good luck running that code on the iPhone, FBI!
They can't because Apple's encryption system will only accept 10 PIN attempts. If you don't get it right within 10 times, it'll wipe the phone. The FBI isn't really saying "decrypt this phone for us." What they do want is for Apple to push an update (remotely and with the phone still locked) that will 1) disable the 10 time limit and 2) allow them to key in the PIN attempts via a computer (simulating a keyboard connected via USB).
All this being said, Apple is right to resist this because, despite the FBI claiming it's a one-time thing, the FBI and others have hundreds of phones lined up for Apple's help to unlock. If Apple writes this software, it won't be tied to one phone. It'll need to be used over and over for new phones every day. And if you say, "They can just write it for one phone and delete it," then the courts will just answer "well, you wrote it once, you can do it again." Alternatively, the FBI might demand a general tool to use for future investigations once they have a record of getting these phones unlocked whenever they want.
The time to fight this is now and thank goodness Apple is taking up the fight. This is one of those all-too-rare occurrences when corporate interests and consumer interests align.
Trump seems more like the Norman Osborne of our world. A slimy individual who will do anything if it advances himself, who has a "clean" public image, but who is for some seriously scary stuff.
Actually, Trump has spent his own money - about $250K of it. Much more, however, he has "loaned" his campaign. Eventually, if/when he's the nominee and raises funds from other people, his campaign will pay him back with interest. Thus, Trump will profit off of running for President even if he doesn't win. (That, and the whole "free publicity" thing which he loves.)
I agree with this but add to the game show buzzer with a mild electric shock. Not enough to permanently injure the candidates, but enough to stop them from speaking and make them experience some pain. (Of course, some politicians might develop an immunity to electric shocks, but we can cross that bridge later.)
You jest, but some congressmen have criticized the FCC for setting the definition of "Broadband Internet" at 25Mbps. These politicians (and the ISPs that paid for them) think we'd be just fine with 10 Mbps and they can't imagine any use where we'd need faster.
(Personally, I'm stuck on 15Mbps Time Warner Cable and really wish the network faster and more reliable.)
That's because the real situation is:
c) The FBI wants Apple (and other phone manufacturers) to give them backdoor access. So far, phone manufacturers have resisted this. So the FBI is using this high profile case relating to terrorism (that "scary word" that all too often gives politicians root access to do anything they want) to set a precedent. If it goes according to the FBI's plan, then Apple will be forced to help them unlock this one phone. Then another phone will need to be unlocked and the precedent will already be set. Eventually, the list of crimes requiring Apple to unlock and the number of agencies able to request an unlock will grow until the local police department can have your phone unlocked because you were speeding. At some point, Apple will be forced by sheer volume to just include a backdoor so the FBI (and other law enforcement agencies) can get in without their requests getting in line at Apple behind all the other ones.
THAT is their end game. They are using this to get their foot in the door and then they'll push for more and more until our security (via encryption) is gone to help ensure our "security" (as in security theater... also known as power trip by those in law enforcement).
With most other politicians, you can pretty much ensure that they support the positions they are espousing. They might not actually act on them once elected for various reasons (for example, they might promise to make something illegal but then realize that the President just can't declare something illegal), but you can be pretty sure they won't flip flop and support the exact opposite position.
Trump, on the other hand, seems to say whatever he wants at the time and has no care whether something is true or whether it contradicts something he said previously. He's been for abortion, against it, for assault weapons bans, against them, etc. If he's sworn in as President, there's no telling what set of views he'll actually push forward.
Then again, even if we take him at his word, Trump has said some pretty scary stuff this election season. Things that would have meant the end of the candidacy for any other politician. Most recently, he said he wanted to weaken the First Amendment so that he could sue journalists who criticized him. Yes, Trump wants to make criticizing someone illegal even if the criticism is true. For all the talk of "he's not politically correct", having someone say you can't criticize a person or it will hurt them enough to warrant a lawsuit sounds extremely politically correct to me.
Trump is like a loose cannon on a ship. We don't know what direction he's going to fire in or what damage he'll do. The direction he's currently pointed in, however, is right at the hull of the ship and if he goes off in that direction he'll sink us all.
I definitely agree about run off voting and the electoral college. For the former, I'd love to say "I really want this candidate, but I'll take that candidate next, and if I really need to I'll hold my nose and vote for this third candidate." For the latter, I live in New York. No matter who I vote for, it's almost a given that my state's electoral college votes will go to the Democrat nominee. The problem with both is that the current system favors the entrenched parties and they will use all of their considerable effort to block and changes to it that reduce their power.
I almost wonder what would happen if Hillary got the Democrat nomination, the GOP dumped Trump (through some backroom procedures, most likely) and went with Cruz or Rubio, and both Sanders and Trump ran (separately) as third party candidates. Obviously, Sanders would draw mainly from the Democrat side while Trump would pull mostly from the GOP side. Would their third party runs weaken one side more than another? Would the effect of two strong third party candidates make the election close enough that one of the two third party candidates would have a decent shot at winning? Could we wind up with a third party President?
Personally, if Hillary gets the nomination, I'm either voting third party or - if there is no good third party candidate - will write in "Bernie Sanders."
That and "too much regulation" is entirely subjective. Let's suppose a company wants to dump its waste into a local river. Doing this is cheap and they don't need to worry about any cleanup. Unfortunately, people get sick due to the waste dump and regulations are written about proper waste disposal. This will cost the company money, which eats into profits. Of course the company will call these regulations "too much." To the people who are getting sick, though, the regulations might even be not enough. (e.g.. There isn't a strong enforcement provision or there's a loophole that lets them subcontract to another company who dumps the same waste into the same river.)
"Too much regulation" could be that the regulations really are burdensome and don't serve a valid purpose. Or "too much regulation" could mean that the company just wants to take the quick and easy path regardless of who gets hurt in the process because that will make them a few bucks more in profits.
"We're playing baseball with Timmy but he said that since the ball is his he should get ten strikes before he's out, not one. He also wants every hit of his to come with one free base advance. If we tell him no, then he's leaving with his ball and will play with some boys down the street who will give him all the special rules he's demanding."
I still like Twitter too. I think the key to Twitter is the same as the Internet in general. If you follow good people, you'll have a good experience. If you follow garbage, you'll have a rotten experience. If someone you follow starts posting garbage, you can just unfollow them to keep your feed clean and useful.
The trick is that what's good to one person is garbage to another. You or I could recommend people for others to follow but those others might say the recommendations stink. Not because the tweets are objectively bad, but because different people like different things.
All this being said, there are some indications that Twitter is looking to Facebook for inspiration as to where to head in the future. This is a huge mistake and could ruin the best part of Twitter - being able to get an unfiltered reverse-chronological view of what people you choose to follow are saying.
"Criticism is harassment"? And yet, when I and others were actually harassed on Twitter (by a psycho who believed god spoke with her and told her we all did some pretty disgusting illegal things), their response was that she's only "said" she was going to do things (like report us to the police or contact all businesses we deal with to warn them away from us) and hasn't actually DONE anything. And when she actually was kicked off Twitter, she just signed back in under a new account. (She's had something like 200 accounts so far.)
There is actual harassment happening on Twitter and taking care of it would be a good thing. Admittedly, this would be tricky to accomplish without squashing people's speech so Twitter would be best served by focusing on real harassment issues first. When that's solved, then they can move on to simple criticism (while pigs tweet their first flights).
(Disclaimer: I'm a Sanders supporter too.)
Some people seem to be supporting Hillary because they think she has good policies. More power to the people who believe this. Whether it's true or not (that she has good policies), this is a good reason to support a candidate.
Unfortunately, many people seem to be supporting her because "it's her turn" or because she's a woman and they want a woman President. (Search Twitter for #ImWithHer for tweets supporting Hillary because of gender.) As far as the first goes, it's never anyone's "turn." You don't get to wait in line and get your turn being President. When it comes to the latter? Well, I have no problem with a woman President. I think we're past due to have one and will support any woman running who I think would make a good President. What I won't do, however, is support a candidate simply because they have a certain set of chromosomes just like I wouldn't vote for them simply because of skin color, ethnic background, or religious affiliation. Bernie is Jewish just like I am. It'd be cool to have the first Jewish President. As far as "reasons to vote for Bernie" goes, though, that doesn't even make it on my list.
I never said the hit man wouldn't be punished. Of course he would be. But the mob boss who ordered the hit would also be punished. Free speech has limitations.
Speech can definitely be used to incite violence and defamation/libel have been illegal for quite some time. None of our freedoms are without limit and that includes free speech. If a mob boss tells a hit man that someone needs to be shot dead, is that just words that can't possibly be prosecuted? If a pastor gives a stirring (to his group) speech about the evils of abortion, mentions how evil should be shot dead on sight, and then lists the home addresses of doctors who perform abortions, does he bear zero responsibility if one of his followers shoots one of the doctors?
Inciting someone to violence doesn't mean that the person who committed the act gets off. This isn't a "free will" issue where the person claims their will was taken over by someone else and they aren't culpable. However, it recognizes that people hold sway over each other and some hold a lot of sway.